Author on book exploring 9/11 failures dares Patrick Fitzgerald to sue him for libel

By Peter Lance

Published: July 15, 2009


Author: “Mr. Fitzgerald, in your threat to sue for libel, please, either put up or shut up”

Seven weeks ago Patrick Fitzgerald, the most intimidating Federal prosecutor in America, sent my publisher (HarperCollins) and me a letter threatening to sue us for libel if Triple Cross, a book I wrote critical of his anti-terrorism track record, was published.

Yesterday marked the four week anniversary of the book’s publication date, and although it’s been out for a month, we’re still waiting for his summons and complaint.

It was the fourth threat letter that Fitzgerald had sent since October 2007, and the man who’d succeeded in getting New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed for 85 days in the CIA leak probe was growing impatient.

“To put it plain and simple,” Fitzgerald wrote, “if in fact you publish the book this month and it defames me or casts me in a false light, HarperCollins will be sued.”

You could almost hear Fitzgerald holding his breath and stamping his feet, astonished that we had not rolled over after he issued the following demand in his first letter 20 months earlier:

I write to demand that Harper Collins cease publication, distribution and sale of the current version of the book… issue and publish a clear and unequivocal statement acknowledging that the book contains false statements about me; refrain from publication of any updated version (and) take no steps to transfer the rights to any other person or entity to publish the book in any form.
In this initial letter, Fitzgerald included an Attachment requesting that HarperCollins “preserve” twelve separate categories of records including all “book drafts,” correspondence between me and the publisher, even “records of any and all projected sales” of the book “including any and all records of profits attributable to Triple Cross.”

There was even the hint of a personal vendetta. Apparently, Judith Regan, my former publisher, who’d left HarperCollins in 2006 after the scandal over the O.J. Simpson book, If I Did It, had discussed a $1 million book deal with Fitzgerald for his memoirs.

So in that first threat letter, the U.S. Attorney demanded:

…any documents reflecting Harper Collins estimate of the market value of my personal reputation, including, but not limited to, any documents relating to an unsolicited letter from Judith Regan, on behalf of Harper Collins, to me offering me a “seven figure” sum for the rights.
Two weeks later, on November 2nd, 2007, Mark Jackson, then attorney for HarperCollins, rejected Fitzgerald’s libel claim and called Triple Cross “an important work of investigative journalism.”

But the man The Washington Post once called a “relentless” prosecutor was undaunted. On November 16th, Fitzgerald sent a second letter, this one amounting to 16 pages. And, as if to remind us who we were dealing with, each page bore a time stamp showing that it was faxed from the office of the “U.S. Attorney Chicago.”

In the June 8th edition of Newsweek, when Michael Isikoff broke the story of Fitzgerald’s campaign to kill the book, he quoted the Chicago U.S. Attorney as saying that he was “not aware” that the time stamp would be visible. But that’s a difficult story to swallow from the man Vanity Fair described as having a “mainframe-computer brain” in their fawning 2006 tribute, “Mr. Fitz Goes to Washington.”

32 pages of threat letters
If you go to my website http://peterlance.com and download the 32 pages of threat letters, they chronicle an almost obsessive effort by Fitzgerald to pulp the book.

In his third letter, sent on September 22nd, 2008, Fitzgerald actually used the word “demand” twice in the same sentence: “I write to demand immediate compliance with my demands of October, 2007.”

In his fourth letter, sent June 2nd, 2009, Fitzgerald described the entire book as “a deliberate lie masquerading as the truth.”

Consider the recklessness of that statement in the context of the libel standard that all journalists live by: the rule set forth in the landmark Supreme Court case, New York Times vs. Sullivan.

In order to mount a successful defamation claim, “Times vs. Sullivan” requires a public official like Fitzgerald to demonstrate “a reckless disregard for the truth” or “actual malice.”

Fitzgerald would be hard pressed to clear that hurdle, since the hardcover edition of Triple Cross ran 604 pages, with 1,420 end notes and 32 pages of documentary appendices, including a series of 302 FBI memos and a 1999 affirmation sworn to by Fitzgerald himself.

If you have any doubts about the depth of my research, termed “meticulous” in a recent piece for Forbes.com, you can download a pdf of the illustrated Timeline from the middle of the book, along with those appendices, which include some heretofore classified documents.

Yet in his 20 month campaign to kill the book, Fitzgerald crossed the threshold of libel himself. In a June 8th interview with the Associated Press, he falsely claimed that I blamed him in Triple Cross for the mass casualties on 9/11 and the African embassy bombings:

“The book lied about the facts and alleged that I deliberately misled the courts and the public in ways that in part caused the deaths in the 1998 embassy bombing attacks and in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” Fitzgerald said the lives lost in those attacks were personal for him and he decided to stand up for himself because “it is outrageous to falsely accuse me of causing those deaths corruptly.”
A simple reading of Triple Cross in its hardcover edition will offer proof positive that I never even came close to making such a claim. But that comment, along with Fitzgerald’s “lie masquerading as the truth” line suggested the same reckless disregard for the truth that I was accused of by the Chicago U.S. Attorney.

A Justice Dept. complaint vs. Fitzgerald
So on June 15th, I filed a complaint against Fitzgerald with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, asking acting counsel Mary Patrice Brown to open what amounts to an internal affairs investigation of the U.S. Attorney and his drive to pulp my book.

An examination of Fitzgerald’s 32 pages of threat letters suggests that if he actually wrote them himself he must have spent days, perhaps even weeks, trying to bury Triple Cross. If he used one of the 161 lawyers in the Chicago federal prosecutor’s office, that raises even more serious questions.

Since word of the Fitzgerald censorship scandal broke, I’ve had the support of a number of First Amendment and anti-censorship advocates, including The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press; Nat Hentoff, the éminence gris of The Village Voice, who wrote his last column in January; and Jan Schlichtmann, the gusty tort lawyer celebrated in Jonathan Harr’s 1995 best seller, A Civil Action.

“What Patrick Fitzgerald, tried to do, in attempting to shut down this book, was repugnant,” says Schlitchtmann. “It represented a virtually unprecedented attempt by a sitting U.S. official to kill a book critical of his performance in office. Fitzgerald had to know he didn’t have a libel claim, yet for months and months he tried to force HarperCollins and Peter Lance to knuckle under to his demands – something they refused to do.”

So far, online columnists on the right and the left, who might otherwise have cut each other’s throats, have been universal in their support for Triple Cross’s publication.

See: columns from Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Accuracy in Media and The New American on the right to The Daily Kos, rawstory.com and thepublicrecord.com on the left.

Rory O’Connor’s piece for The Huffington Post was titled “Patrick Fitzgerald’s Private Jihad.”

The chilling effect
In an article I wrote for playboy.com, published June 16th, I detailed the kind of ”’Chilling Effect” Fitzgerald sought to achieve with HarperCollins. In the piece I presented evidence that in discrediting a treasure trove of al Qaeda-related intelligence in 1996 (underscored by his June 25th, 1999 sworn affirmation), Fitzgerald himself might have been guilty of the very same perjury and obstruction charges he used to convict Scooter Libby in “Plamegate.”

That Playboy piece also detailed another central finding in Triple Cross that Fitzgerald may have found embarrassing: the story of Sphinx Trading. Sphinx was a mailbox-check cashing store located in the same building that housed the al-Salam Mosque of blind Shiekh Omar Abdel Rahman. That mosque location was dubbed “the Jersey Jihad office” during the “Day of Terror” trial co-prosecuted by Fitzgerald and Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy in 1995.

Prior to that trial, Fitzgerald and McCarthy compiled a list of 172 un-indicted co-conspirators, which included bin Laden and his brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa.

In a November 17th, 2006 piece for The Huffington Post, I made the case that if the Feds under Fitzgerald (then head of the Organized Crime and Terrorism Unit in the SDNY) had applied just a portion of the energy to monitoring Sphinx that they had used on their around-the-clock surveillance of John Gotti’s social club in Little Italy, the Towers might still be standing in Lower Manhattan.

Why? Because al-Midhar and al-Hazmi, two of the muscle hijackers who flew AA #77 into the Pentagon on 9/11, not only had mailboxes at Sphinx but they got the fake ID’s they used to board that flight from Mohammed El-Attriss, Sphinx’s co-founder and partner of Sphinx with Waleed al Noor.

In that list of unindicted co-conspirators drawn up by McCarthy and Fitzgerald during the Day of Terror trial, Waleed A. Noor was No. 130. That means Fitzgerald considered him important enough to associate with Ali Mohamed and Osama bin Laden himself.

The Feds had been onto Sphinx Trading since 1990, when the killer of Rabbi Meier Kahane (El Sayyid Nosair) was found to have kept a mailbox there.

By 2001, Fitzgerald was the effective “general” directing the Justice Department’s “war on terror.” By simply connecting those three dots, from Nosair to al Noor to El Attriss, the Feds could have been into the “planes operation” executed on 9/11 in July – two months earlier.

Al Qaeda’s master spy
But perhaps the revelation in Triple Cross most embarrassing to Patrick Fitzgerald related to another name on that list of 172, No 109: Ali A. Mohamed, the al Qaeda master spy who became the central focus of my book.

Not only did the ex-Egyptian army major succeed in scamming the CIA in Hamburg in 1984, but he slipped past a Watch List, seduced a U.S. woman on a TWA flight from Athens to JFK in 1985, married her at a drive-through wedding chapel in Reno, Nevada, then set up a sleeper cell at her home in Silicon Valley.

Months later he enlisted in the U.S. Army where – astonishingly – he succeeded in getting himself posted to the JFK Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, the highly secure facility where elite Green Beret and Delta Force Officers trained.

20 years ago this week, Ali, known to his radical Islamic brothers as “Ali Amiriki” (“Ali the American”), was driving up to New York City, where he trained the al Qaeda cell members later convicted in the 1993 WTC, bombing, the Kahane murder and the “Day of Terror” plot (prosecuted by Fitzgerald and McCarthy), whose cell members intended to blow up the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan.

From January 1996, as I document in Triple Cross, Fitzgerald was effectively directing Squad 1-49 (the bin Laden Squad) in the FBI’s NYO – seeking to get an indictment of Osama bin Laden. One of the lead agents was Jack Cloonan, whose job it was to go back and discover who Ali Mohamed really was.

As Cloonan started peeling back the layers of Mohamed’s triple sting of the CIA, DIA (at Bragg) and the FBI (where he’d become an informant from 1992 on), his jaw began to drop at Ali’s cold blooded boldness and success.

And as I documented in the book, two of the principal Feds that “Ali Amiriki” snookered were Andy McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald himself.

In 1994, prepping for the “Day of Terror” trial, McCarthy actually flew to California and met Ali face to face; withdrawing back to New York after Mohamed lied and told him that he was running a scuba diving business in Kenya.

The truth was that by then Mohamed was a principal player in the emerging plot to blow up the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. In fact, Mohamed had commenced the plot in 1993 by taking the very surveillance picture bin Laden would use to locate the bombs that would detonate years later in 1998.

In an interview for the book, Cloonan admitted that Ali was actually angry at the Feds for not paying his airfare from Africa to California for the meet with McCarthy.

But the al Qaeda spy’s most audacious act would play out three years later, in the fall of 1997, in front of Patrick Fitzgerald himself. After another Squad I-49 agent discovered evidence linking Ali to one of the plot’s top co-conspirator’s in Nairobi, Fitzgerald actually flew across country to confront Ali in a face to face meeting. It took place in a Sacramento restaurant across from the California statehouse.

After the Feds made their pitch to get Mohamed to turn, the hardened terrorist declared that he “loved” bin Laden and didn’t need a fatwa to attack America.

Further, he admitted that he had a number of effective “sleepers” hiding in the U.S. homeland whom he could activate at any time.

Leaving Mohamed “on the street”
Then, thumbing his nose at the man Vanity Fair called “the bin Laden Brain,” Mohamed left – at which point Fitzgerald turned to Cloonan and called Ali, “the most dangerous man I have ever met.” More importantly he declared, “we cannot let this man out on the street.”

But that’s exactly what happened. Mysteriously, Fitzgerald allowed this al Qaeda master spy to stay loose for another ten months, until a month after the simultaneous truck bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 and injured thousands.

Only then did Fitzgerald pull Ali “over,” arresting him and stashing him in the M.C.C. (federal jail in Lower Manhattan) under a John Doe warrant, ultimately cutting a deal with Mohamed to avoid the death penalty.

By any definition a deal is a contract – a promise for a promise – and previous “rats,” like Sammy “the Bull” Gravano, earned their way to an early release by becoming star witnesses at a host of Federal trials.

But when Patrick Fitzgerald commenced U.S. vs. bin Laden, the embassy bombing trial, in early 2001 (the case that made his career), Ali “The American” was curiously missing from the stand.

The greatest enigma
In effect, the Feds had bought his silence with that deal. Today, Mohamed is hidden away in some kind of custodial witness protection – perhaps the greatest enigma in the “war on terror.”

This ex-al Qaeda spy is a one man 9/11 Commission, who could stand witness to the failures and screw-ups of the FBI and Southern District Feds on the road to September 11th, but there are seals upon seals on his case. He’d been virtually forgotten by the public, until I happened to tell his story with such detail in Triple Cross.

That’s the book that Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t want you to read.

The new trade paperback edition is now in stores – updated and 26 pages longer, so that I could air Fitzgerald’s charges and give him his due. As to my key findings on his anti-terrorism track record, the paperback is virtually identical to the hardcover edition he tried to kill.

So now, on the day after Bastille Day, I’m writing this piece to say “Bring it Pat…” Put your summons and complaint for libel where your mouth was all those months. If you think you have a viable defamation case against me and HarperCollins, mount it now – or admit that you never should have abused the power of your office by using the civil libel laws to try and chill a journalist and publisher.

While no one invites litigation, I for one would welcome a chance to sit across a legal conference table, where you would be compelled to testify at a deposition under oath. Maybe then you’d tell the full truth about how it was that the best and the brightest in the FBI and SDNY were so outgunned for so long by al Qaeda and its master spy.

If you don’t have what it takes to file that threatened lawsuit, Mr. Fitz, then at least have the honesty to withdraw your specious claim and support my call for Ali Mohamed to testify before a committee of Congress.

As Justice Brandeis said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” and it’s time for the Justice Department and the FBI to shine a light into the dark recesses of Ali Mohamed’s secret life.

See that, right there, it's the same no matter what wing of the bird you look at.

If we just simply stopped with ninnying and focused on making sure that the Constitution was obeyed, it would be a much better place to live and Cable news would be stuck reporting on panda sex.

Didn't he do apprectice work under Kissinger? Isn't one of the men who has his ear Brzezinski?

If you go take a look at the lists of the banks that donated to Mr. Obama's campaign and take a look at the list of banks who have jumped in line for TARP money... guess what you'll see?

Obama’s Science Czar: Traditional family is obsolete, punish large families

David Freddoso
Washington Examiner
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances. His 1977 tome, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, also displays a revealing disregard for the institution of the traditional human family.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs write:

Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable, whether population control is instituted or not. Inaction, attended by a steady deterioration in living conditions for the poor majority, will bring changes everywhere that no one could consider beneficial. Thus, it is beside the point to object to population-control measures simply on the grounds that they might change the social structure or family relationships.

Holdren, with a blithe “of course,” encourages government to wage an effective war on the family in America. It begins with the abolition of “pronatalist” policies and continues with their complete reversal:

As United States taxpayers know, income tax laws have long implicitly encouraged marriage and childbearing…Such a pronatalist bias of course is no longer appropriate. In countries that are affluent enough for the majority of citizens to pay taxes, tax laws could be adjusted to favor (instead of penalize) single people, working wives, and small families. Other tax measures might also include high marriage fees, taxes on luxury baby goods and toys, and removal of family allowances where they exist. Other possibilities include the limitation of maternal or educational benefits to two children per family.

Holdren notes that some of these proposals “have the potential disadvantage of heavily penalizing children (and in the long run society as well).” This is not a disqualifier, though, as long as the proposals are “carefully adjusted to avoid denying at least minimum care for poor families, regardless of the number of children they may have.” Even here, the objection is practical, not ethical. It’s fine to level stiff penalties against those who choose families and children, but not to the point that this policy exacerbates the original problem (unwanted children, living in squalor) that population control purports to combat.

Some Americans might cite the Founding Fathers and argue that a government whose policy is to make war on the family in the name of science has clearly overstepped its mandate. That was not the opinion expressed by John Holdren, the man President Obama has put in charge in the nation’s science policy.

When I was in BCT, my Drill's pounded into my head that we had the DUTY to disobey an unlawful order. If this soldier truly believes Mr.Obama is in fact not qualified, by his citizenship, then any order Mr.Obama is giving in the capacity as Commander in Chief is in fact an unlawful order.
Bring it to trial.

I'm past it, because the control of that seat of power has been usurped from the hands of the people currently and is in the hands of the aforementioned banking/corporate interests. Regardless of what piece of paper Obama put up, he's in there. No different than all the b.s. that put Bush the Lesser in office twice.

I wish Americans would get past all this retarded false tribalism called partisan politics, and start expecting the right things from those we put our faith in, or put them out the damn door.

If you disagree, ask yourself this: Who has the power to make Norad stand down and Why is that exactly what happened on 9/11 was being "war gamed" by our Government... on 9/11?

LOL! I thought everyone knew my opinion of 9/11.

I'm in full support of a true independant investigation. I fully believe there are elements of an inside job, there are definitely people who knew something before hand. The question is, who knew what, who did what and who needs tried for treason.

It's really quite simple.

We have an inordinate budget shortfall across both state and federal lines. Legalizing marijuana along a recreational use would offer up one taxable line, but theres more. It would open up the industrial hemp market. Plastics, clothing, other textiles. As a country whose industrial base is being shipped far and wide, the legalization could reopen markets to americans for americans that hasn't been seen since Nafta.

Farmers would have an instant cash crop.

Products made from hemp would be biodegradeble, making the greenies happy.

There are alot of people who given the option would toke the weed rather than booze, but regardless there will always be a segment of people who seek to manipulate themselves chemically.
Would you rather face a pliant, munchy motivated pothead or a unpredictable drunk?

Regardless of all that info, I'm of the opinion that government should stay the hell out of my house. If I'm not hurting anyone or myself, then government should go away. Besides, they've been neglecting their Constitutional duties anyway.

I'm very much against Obama's pro-Globalist agenda, but I've never been totally sure about this. Now I had some questions that didn't get answered, but he's in there, he was put there by the same international banking cartels that shoved bush down our throats for 8 years and no matter of question asking and evidence producing is going to change that, because we've been making Orwell roll over in his grave for decades.

Even if that fight was legitimate, it's too late now. Time to focus on the next round.

forgot the link.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation

By Coleen Rowley

In the absence of my being there in New York City to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, I offer the following statement in support of your goal of a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th and the NYC CAN campaign to place it on the ballot for November.

At the time of 9-11, I had been an FBI agent for over 20 years. My main responsibilities by then were teaching criminal procedure to FBI agents and other law enforcement officers, mostly about 4th Amendment search and seizure, 5th and 6th Amendment law of interrogation, right to attorney and constitutional protection of rights to “free speech”, due process, habeas corpus, and against cruel and unusual punishment. A week before 9-11, I and the rest of the FBI’s ethics instructors were mandated (as a result of an earlier public FBI scandal) to give a one hour PowerPoint presentation, a form of remedial training on “law enforcement ethics” which I accomplished in a fairly perfunctory way, just reading the slides.

After 9-11, with the knowledge I had of the bitter internal dispute inside the FBI that was being hushed up but had kept some of our better agents from possibly uncovering more of the 9-11 plot before it happened, I couldn’t forget two of the slides in that Law Enforcement ethics curriculum: “DO NOT: Puff, Shade, Tailor, Firm up, Stretch, Massage, or Tidy up statements of fact.” And “Misplaced Loyalties: As employees of the FBI, we must be aware that our highest loyalty is to the United States Constitution. We should never sacrifice the truth in order to obtain a desired result (e.g. conviction of a defendant) or to avoid personal or institutional embarrassment.”

The official dissembling and excuse-making about the true causes and prior mistakes that gave rise to and allowed the terrorist attacks to happen, almost immediately ushered in the Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror” agenda which bore no connection to the original causes and no connection to the goal of reducing terrorism and making the world safer. When I got a chance, about 8 ½ months after 9-11 to tell what I knew, I did so and my disclosures led to further investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General and figured in the 9-11 Commission Report.

But it was way too late for this emerging bit of truth that has continued to leak out in dribs and drabs to have any impact. The laws themselves, especially the criminal procedure ones rooted in the Constitution that I had spent my career teaching to law enforcement, have largely gone up in smoke. Having seen the cost of remaining silent, I publicly warned, a few months after my first memo, against launching the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But false agendas had already filled the vacuum created by lack of truth. And we are still dealing with the disastrous consequences of these unjustified, pre-emptive wars.

Let me therefore simply repeat the request I made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2002: “Foremost, we owe it to the public, especially the victims of terrorism, to be completely honest. I can only imagine what these crime and terrorism victims continue to go through. They deserve nothing but the complete, unfettered truth.”

Therefore, I fully support the 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and over 60,000 other New Yorkers who have endorsed a new 9/11 investigation in New York City as advanced by ballot referendum this coming November election.

Coleen Rowley is a former FBI staff attorney who turned whistle-blower after witnessing repeated failures within the bureau to properly investigate alleged 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. She was one of three Time Magazine Persons of the Year in 2002.

First with the soldier refusing to follow Obama's orders as Commander in Chief, until he produces a "legitimate" birth certificate and now this neat little gem.


African Media: Obama Returned To “Continent Of His Birth”

Ghanaian news outlet claim sure to raise eyebrows of birth certificate skeptics

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A major Ghanaian news outlet has been caught in a revealing slip-up after it reported that President Barack Obama’s recent visit to the African country was a return to his birthplace.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of president.”

This invalidates the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency if, as a growing number of people believe, he was in fact born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claims. After mounting pressure, the Obama campaign released a Hawaiian birth certificate on June 13 2008, but skeptics claimed that it showed signs of being forged.

Contained in an otherwise relatively mundane account of Obama’s recent visit to Ghana in the Daily Graphic news outlet is a sentence sure to raise eyebrows amongst people like journalist Jerome Corsi, who has been at the forefront of the Obama birth certificate scandal since well before the election.

The full paragraph reads, “For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth.”

Why the Ghanaian news outlet would report that Obama was born on the continent of Africa, when this would instantly invalidate his entire presidency, is unclear.

In April a transcript from an interview with Obama’s step-grandmother was released in which she discussed being present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

“WND is in possession of an affidavit submitted by Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya, and a second affidavit signed by Bishop Ron McRae, the presiding elder of the Anabaptists’ Continental Presbytery of Africa,” reported Corsi.

In his affidavit, Shuhubia asserts “it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya.”

As Corsi reported recently, the hospital in Hawaii where Obama claims he was born has refused to produce documentation or even acknowledge the fact. Attempts to obtain Obama’s hospital-generated long-form original birth certificate have been rebuffed.

Doubts about Obama’s birth certificate are now spreading in military circles. U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook has refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief. Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz, has filed separate lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency.

It must be a great game, 2 sides of the same coin pretending to oppose one another to get create these cults of personality.

I say let them investigate, the minute it uncovers their own leadership having knowledge, nothing will happen.

Insinuating? Naa... not me, I'm flat out saying Al is perpetrating a scam.

Mr.Obama stands to make some pretty big money from it too.

Just guess who is going to make a killing off of selling carbon credits?

Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About ‘Global Governance’

Climate Depot
Saturday, July 11, 2009

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.

On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, “Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.” Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN’s Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”

‘Global Carbon Tax’ Urged at UN Meeting

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gore-u-s-climate-bill-will-help-bring-about-global-governance.html

There's good and bad, but you have to remember your history. Tyranny always shows up at your door in a uniform.

Things just aren't the same as they used to be. I'm not that old, but I can remember cops that used to patrol my neighborhood as a kid, they knew all the kids and used to stop to talk to us about things like how we were doing in school. I just don't see that now, instead I see things changing from "Cops", who served the interests of the communities they served, to "Law Enforcement", who serve as enforcers and revenue generators for the state.

I will leave this with, just when I start to think they're all bad, I end up meeting one who is out there doing the right thing.

Tase Early, Tase Often - Column
The shocking truth about speeding busts: sometimes a ticket is not the worst part.

BY PATRICK BEDARD
May 2008



The camera looks forward through the windshield of a police car in Austin, Texas, recording a traffic bust. We see the back of Cpl. Thomas O’Connor as he strides forward on the driver side of the sedan he just stopped on South Mopac Expressway. O’Connor speaks hurriedly. He sounds angry as he identifies himself by name and department and finishes the sentence with a demand for a driver’s license and proof of insurance. Five seconds have elapsed since he left the patrol car.

In the next nine seconds he tells the driver, Eugene Snelling, 32, that he was stopped for 70 in a 65 zone and for having no license plate on the rear of his car. In the next five seconds, O’Connor demands “driver’s license and proof of insurance” two more times.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” the driver replies. His mother is in the car—he’s driving her to Thanksgiving dinner—and she’s talking, too.

The policeman demands “driver’s license and proof of insurance or get out of the vehicle.” Twenty-four seconds have now elapsed.

The driver’s mother nags her son from the passenger seat. At 29 seconds, the policeman yanks open the driver’s door and orders, “Step out of the vehicle.” As the driver fumbles with his seatbelt, the policeman draws a TASER from his belt holster. We’re 33 seconds into the bust now, and the mother is still telling her son what to do. At 41 seconds, the driver’s feet touch the pavement, and he stands up. The policeman shoves the door shut, hitting the driver in the shoulder and knocking him off balance. That’s followed by a hard push with an order to “get to the back of the vehicle.”

“I have no idea why—” Snelling begins, but the officer shouts him down: “Get to the back of the vehicle, put your hands on the vehicle.” The driver obviously doesn’t understand why he’s being treated so roughly when he’s said nothing provocative. He hesitates, looks at the policeman in disbelief, and the policeman fires his weapon at him. Zero to TASER: 48 seconds from the time the officer stepped out of his patrol car.

Another camera, this time in Utah. We follow as an SUV eases onto the shoulder. Trooper John Gardner walks forward on the driver side. His greeting is matter-of-fact. The driver, in a polite voice, asks how fast he was going, but the officer ignores the question and asks firmly for his license and registration.

“No, I’m serious, I’m just wondering,” says Jared Massey, 28. We can’t hear the conversation that follows, but 35 seconds after the officer first appeared at the window, we hear him ask, “How fast do you think you were going?” There’s a discussion about passing a sign. No raised voices. It all sounds like a well-modulated back-and-forth. After 73 seconds at the driver’s door, the officer returns to his cruiser to write a ticket.

When he returns to the SUV, we hear Massey say, “You’re giving me a ticket, but you won’t tell me why.” The driver wants to go back with the trooper to see where the 40-mph sign is.

“You’re gonna sign this first.” Massey refuses.

“Okay, hop outta the car.” Nineteen seconds have elapsed since Trooper Gardner reappeared with the ticket. The driver complies quickly and walks back in the direction from which he had driven, pointing toward something. He’s not aggressive toward the trooper, is not even facing him but, rather, looks down the road pointing. The officer draws his TASER, points it at Massey, and says, “Turn around and put your hands behind your back.”

The driver recoils. “What’s wrong with you?” he asks. He starts to walk the other way. Gardner fires at the driver’s back.

Zero to TASER: 32 seconds after the Trooper’s return.

Tom Smith, co-founder and chairman of the board at TASER International, says 4000 law-enforcement agencies now equip all patrol officers with a TASER electronic control device, which he likens to a Star Trek phaser. “It fires out two probes, like jumper cables,” he says. “They attach to an individual by wires up to 35 feet away. It sends an electrical signal into the body.” The result is “an immediate loss of the person’s neuromuscular control.”

Statistics tossed about by TASER supporters proclaim it to be the most effective close-range neutralizer since Davy Crockett brought down a bear using only his grin: “Officer injuries down 80 percent; suspect injuries down 67 percent; use of lethal force down by 78 percent,” they say. Just one little problem. Law enforcement hasn’t agreed on where TASER use is appropriate, where it should be placed on the use-of-force continuum.

This is cop talk for how much force to use in a given situation. Every department has a standard, but there’s no standard standard across the country. One approach divides officer response into six levels, with deadly force being Level Six. On this scale, pepper spray, baton blows, and the TASER are Level Four, appropriate when the suspect is “violent or threatening.” Some California agencies put the TASER at Level Five. Sheriff’s officers in Orange County, Florida, use it against “passive resistance” (Level Three).

In the videos described here, the drivers weren’t resisting—at worst, they were less than instant in their compliance. That calls for Level Four force? Following the Austin incident, the department’s Internal Affairs office saw no problem, but then acting Chief Cathy Ellison ordered Officer O’Connor suspended for three days. In Utah, “We have found Trooper Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable,” said Highway Patrol Superintendent Lance Davenport.
To your list of highway hazards, better add itchy TASER fingers.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/tase_early_tase_often_column

2 things, If you do evil to stop evil, you've just become the thing you sought to stop.

The other is, don't get me started about the false flag event on 9/11.